>"Well, maybe science for the hearing impaired goes both ways. <g> For as we
all know the issue is whether these are true "transitions" (we all agree
there is change, of course).<
As a bona fide owner of two hearing aids, I can understand. :-)
But, if you remember, in the debate leading up to my work on the
fish/amphibian and mesonychid/whale transition, I said that I would be very
surprised if you didn't just fold your arms and say, "NOT GOOD ENOUGH."
While you said it in jest immediately after my post, here you have said it
for real.
Don't get me wrong here, 'cause I do not view what I say as necessarily
carrying such intellectual rigor that everyone must agree. But I asked you
before I posted Life's Transitions what you would recognize as being a
transiton. I do not recall hearing an answer.
In what way do my examples and discussions of the details fall short?
Jim wrote in response to my complaint that what the apologetical books have
told me about geology and paleontology have not turned out to be correct:
"This is no doubt true for some "apologetical books." But I don't believe
your
broad brush covers, say, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson (your protestations
to the contrary notwithstanding) or Gordon Rattray Taylor. The latter is
especially apt:"
So, you think Johnson was correct when he implied that a rodent was the
ancestor of the whale? It wasn't. Neither Johnson nor Denton went into
enough detail to know whether or not their contention is correct. Denton does
not even have acanthostega or tetrapod in his index. I have not read Taylor
so can not comment on his work.
Denton states that there are no precambrian forms of life (p. 163). His book
was first published in 1985. The Ediacaran forms, which are precambrian in
age, were first reported (that I am aware of in Jan. 1984). Thus, this
statement was wrong when he first published. Denton's first treatment of the
fish/amphibian record consists of the following paragraph.
"The pattern repeats itself in the emergence of the amphibia. Over a period
of about fifty million years, beginning about three hundred and fifty million
years ago, a number of archaic and now extinct groups of amphibia make their
appearance as fossil. Again, however, each group is distinct and isolated at
its first appearance and no group can be construed as being the ancestor of
any other amphibhian group." Michael Denton, Evoluton: A Theory in Crisis,
Adler and Adler 1986, p. 164. Denton's holds a 1985 copyright.
All I can say of this is "That certainly is a DETAILED examination of the
issue." All Denton did was write his conclusions. There was no examination
of the actual data. Under these rules, I can conclude that the sky is pink
with purple polka dots. Are you convinced?
The second treatment is on page p. 166 and 167 and reveals a little more
detail. He says:
"Take for example, the fish-amphibian transformation. It is generally
presumed that amphibia evolved from fish and even the order of fish, the
Rhipidistia, has been specified. However, transitional forms are lacking.
The first amphibian had well-developed fore-and hindlimbs of normal tetrapod
type which were fully capable of supporting terrestrial motion." Denton, p.
166-167.
The problem with this second tidbit is that while it sounds nice, it is
completely erroneous. The earliest tetrapods had neither the normal tetrapod
type feet nor were the legs fully functional on land. I quote from a
previous post of mine which quotes the appropriate sources.
>These types of statements which are always quoted seem to indicate that >the
amphibian leg popped into existence with the modern morphology. This >is not
the case. Tetrapods today are based upon a 5-digit form. The >earliest
tetrapods were polydactylous. Acanthostega had 8 digits on fore >and back
limbs. Ichtyostega had 7 on the hind limb. Tulerpeton had six >digits on
both fore and hind leg. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 509).
>
>They state, "However, it now appears that neither the pentadactyl condition
>nor the canonical wrist pattern is primitive for tetrapods, which
invalidates
>such earlier theories substantially if not completely." p. 509<
I quote again from my former post
>Coates and Clack (1990, p. 67) state,
>"In Acanthostega the terminal radial and ulnal condyles, and the lack of an
>olecranon process on the ulna, suggest that the forelimb could never have
>flexed from the elbow to lie in a fully load-bearing posture, and that it
was
>probably held horizontally."
Why is it so difficult for us to admit that maybe we are not representing the
data correctly? Why do you think that Denton and Johnson did a detailed job
of looking at the data? The very few observational facts (as opposed to
conclusions) which they cite are not correct. I would respectfully submit
that we Christians should do the utmost to represent the data as it really is
because simply honesty demands that. If after actually representing the
evidence we still don't believe that it requires transitional forms then
fine. But explain why (which you haven't done)..
To close, I really wish you would tell me in detail what my examples lacked
that make them not evidence of transitonal forms. Frankly this whole thing
reminds me of those two kids in my home town who inhabited that ledge and
threw rocks at the kids below but could never be reached by rocks thrown from
below. You don't ever explain anything Please, if we are to have a
discussion about the data, occasionally it would be nice if you would propose
something that could be critiqued. Being the rock thrower is a whole lot
more fun, though, I am sure.
glenn
Per E. Ahlberg and Andrew R. Milner, "The origin and early
diversification of tetrapods, Nature, 368, April 7, 1994 507-514
M. I. Coates and J. A. Clack, "Polydactyly in the Earliest Known tetrapod
limbs." Nature 347, Sept 6, 1990, p. 66-69